nodnarb Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8739142 If there's a better NFL writer in the world, I'd like to know who it is.
Talonz Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8739142 If there's a better NFL writer in the world, I'd like to know who it is. 409451[/snapback] That was a great article -- I took this from it::::: Fiscal note: Erie County, where Ralph Wilson Stadium is located, has all kinds of financial problems. To help, the Bills announced they would pay stadium upkeep costs the county is supposed to cover. Surely this is the first known instance of a professional sports franchise giving money to the public rather than the other way around!
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 There are probably several reasons I don't think much of Easterbrook. 1, First (and perhaps formost) he is one of the few people in the world I have seen who can be more long-winded about football than I am. If anything gives me pause about being such a windbag they are Easterbrooks' columns. 2. I have actually had the pleasure of meeting him personally as he once addressed a group which I am on the Board of. Perhaps he was projecting this persona because he was working but he really seemed to be a legend in his own mind who really overestimated his intelligence. There actually is little crime in that, but he also seemed to underestimate the intelligence of his audience and this can be a fatal flaw. 3. I'm as big a stathound as anyone, but because I like them so much I also know the limitations of stats. They can be used for whatever purpose one wants and though they can indicate a lot they really prove very little of import. Easterbrook was quite facile in his use of stats and really misused them (particularly averages). In the world of Easterbrook the average person averages approximately 1 testicle and approximately 1 tit as he adds up the total number and then divides it by the population. I took a look at this column until even I bogged down. Right from the start he takes an example which is bad for the simple reason that the cliche that one needs 3 or more years before one can accurately value a draft proves true. He concludes (or at least feels strongly that Rivers made a big mistake by blowing his first year by holding out and losing his job to Brees. Maybe but: 1. The stats indicate that QBs in general prove to be more successful when the actually sit most or all of their first year rather than start (the Chad Pennington model). There are many reasons for this finding some of which probably do not speak to the quality of the player (for example there is a case to be made that alegedly stud QBs are often drafted and pressed into early service on bad teams and this may explain part of their bad results rather than them being rushed. However, the statistical analysis I have seen indicates this is not the general case. Folks seem to take Peyton Manning as the example when actually he is the rarity and folks like Ware, Smith or even Ryan Leaf who are given a starting shot quickly are more the rule. Rivers may be much better off in terms of developing as a QB because he got to watch and learn rather than being thrown in before he was ready. 2. QBs get hurt often enough that assuming Rivers will get no chance to play for a while is foolhardy. 3, Contracts are alot more than the $ amount. If by holding out Rivers got language that can serve his advantage as to when bonuses kick in or are paid can make a differrence as to win he becomes an FA or gets paid. To measure the contract as Easterbrook does simply is not accurate n assessing whether a deal is good or not. In general I think one can read the title scan the begiining of the piece for key points and simply ignore most of what he says.
ajzepp Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 In the world of Easterbrook the average person averages approximately 1 testicle and approximately 1 tit as he adds up the total number and then divides it by the population. 409517[/snapback] Wow, there's a mental image for ya.....there'd be a buncha nutless, one-titted bastards running around TBD.....that's just not right
obie_wan Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 In general I think one can read the title scan the begiining of the piece for key points and simply ignore most of what he says. 409517[/snapback] yeah- following one's own advice may be a good thing
BRH Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 yeah- following one's own advice may be a good thing 409639[/snapback]
TheMadCap Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 I get annoyed simply from the fact that I need a decoder ring to figure out what team he's talking about. Seriously, the guy has a pet name for every team...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 There are probably several reasons I don't think much of Easterbrook. 1, First (and perhaps formost) he is one of the few people in the world I have seen who can be more long-winded about football than I am. If anything gives me pause about being such a windbag they are Easterbrooks' columns. 2. I have actually had the pleasure of meeting him personally as he once addressed a group which I am on the Board of. Perhaps he was projecting this persona because he was working but he really seemed to be a legend in his own mind who really overestimated his intelligence. There actually is little crime in that, but he also seemed to underestimate the intelligence of his audience and this can be a fatal flaw. 3. I'm as big a stathound as anyone, but because I like them so much I also know the limitations of stats. They can be used for whatever purpose one wants and though they can indicate a lot they really prove very little of import. Easterbrook was quite facile in his use of stats and really misused them (particularly averages). In the world of Easterbrook the average person averages approximately 1 testicle and approximately 1 tit as he adds up the total number and then divides it by the population. I took a look at this column until even I bogged down. Right from the start he takes an example which is bad for the simple reason that the cliche that one needs 3 or more years before one can accurately value a draft proves true. He concludes (or at least feels strongly that Rivers made a big mistake by blowing his first year by holding out and losing his job to Brees. Maybe but: 1. The stats indicate that QBs in general prove to be more successful when the actually sit most or all of their first year rather than start (the Chad Pennington model). There are many reasons for this finding some of which probably do not speak to the quality of the player (for example there is a case to be made that alegedly stud QBs are often drafted and pressed into early service on bad teams and this may explain part of their bad results rather than them being rushed. However, the statistical analysis I have seen indicates this is not the general case. Folks seem to take Peyton Manning as the example when actually he is the rarity and folks like Ware, Smith or even Ryan Leaf who are given a starting shot quickly are more the rule. Rivers may be much better off in terms of developing as a QB because he got to watch and learn rather than being thrown in before he was ready. 2. QBs get hurt often enough that assuming Rivers will get no chance to play for a while is foolhardy. 3, Contracts are alot more than the $ amount. If by holding out Rivers got language that can serve his advantage as to when bonuses kick in or are paid can make a differrence as to win he becomes an FA or gets paid. To measure the contract as Easterbrook does simply is not accurate n assessing whether a deal is good or not. In general I think one can read the title scan the begiining of the piece for key points and simply ignore most of what he says. 409517[/snapback] At least Easterbrook has an opinion on something and takes a stand on it rather than using length and longwindedness to hide the fact that he's really not taking a stand on anything, not to mention contradicting himself many times in the process.
Talonz Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 At least Easterbrook has an opinion on something and takes a stand on it rather than using length and longwindedness to hide the fact that he's really not taking a stand on anything, not to mention contradicting himself many times in the process. 409812[/snapback]
Terry Tate Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 In the world of Easterbrook the average person averages approximately 1 testicle and approximately 1 tit as he adds up the total number and then divides it by the population. Cool, I'm above average at something!
drnykterstein Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 How does he start off by saying we have great ST and Defense, and then go and compare us to last years bengals..... ... and then go and say that last years bengals didnt make the playoffs because of defense. I'm so confused by this guy.
Recommended Posts